London 2012 Olympics: Aquatics centre was over budget from the start

The successful delivery of London’s velodrome emphasises the ongoing problems
of the aquatics centre, a building conceived as the ‘iconic’ landmark of the
London Games that has instead become an emblem of the poor planning and
hubris contained in elements of the capital’s bid.

Under construction: Aquatics Centre has been beset by spiralling costs and compromised designPhoto: AFP

In the light of a National Audit Office report warning that the arena is likely to be over budget and late, and dismay at how the Zaha Hadid design has been compromised by two ‘wings’ of temporary seating, The Daily Telegraph has learned that the building was over budget even at the bid stage.

In the bid book the aquatics centre was costed at £72 million, but architectural consultants are understood to have advised the Government that £150 million was more appropriate.

A source with knowledge of the discussions told The Daily Telegraph they were “surprised” to find their advice had been ignored and a figure of less than half used for public consumption.

On Tuesday David Higgins, the former chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority, acknowledged that the bid book estimate was “a joke”, and joined the growing debate about the two temporary white stands that now dominate the original design.

Olympic organisers have consistently justified the spiralling cost of the aquatics centre – the latest estimate is at £262 million, 11 per cent over its intended cost stated in 2007 – by insisting that it would be the major architectural flourish of the Olympic Park standing at the main entrance.

From most angles however the temporary wings, angular grandstands coated in white canvas, overshadow the grey “stingray” wave of the main roof, meaning the ‘iconic’ design will not be seen on television during the Games and will not emerge until the athletes have long departed.

Higgins conceded that the temporary stands were “pretty ugly”, a view increasingly shared in the architectural community, but insisted that the compromise was necessary to keep costs down on the arena. The wings are necessary to increase the Games-time capacity of the aquatics centre to 17,500, but will be removed to leave a permanent facility with just 2,500 seats after the Olympics.

Higgins, now chief executive of Network Rail, said Hadid’s original designs for the temporary wings, though sympathetic to the “stingray” wave of the roof of the permanent facility, were prohibitively expensive.

“When we decided in 2006 that we had to cut a lot of cost out of the project we decided to get rid of the elaborate Hadid design for the temporary wings. We had to do it to reduce the cost.”

London 2012 chairman Sebastian Coe said that the building would be a superb legacy for London, and that the wings were a small price to pay for a sustainable legacy.

“The wings are a sensible pragmatic way to put an extra 15,000 seats in there for the Games. If we left a 17,500-seat arena in legacy we would have been criticised, so it will come down to 2,500 and the iconic building will come to life after the Games.

“If the wings do slightly detract from the design itself then I think that is a small price to pay for getting the legacy right.”

The complexity of Hadid’s design has contributed to the cost, with the vast roof supported on just three points and not a single piece of steel available “off the shelf”.

It is also built on the most contaminated part of the Park, and the original design was too big for the site.